A two-day international symposium on copy theory in Chinese art will be he ld at the University of British Columbia (UBC) on March 29th\, 2007\, 9:00 am and 6:00 pm and March 30\, 2007\, 9:00 am to 3:30 pm. Twenty scholars fr om Canada\,
Pre-registration is strongly advised. Please send your na me\, affiliation\, contact info / email\, and dates you will attend the eve nt to April Liu\,awolape@yahoo.com\, no later than March 20. Please indicate whether or not you would like to p urchase lunch at the symposium. (approx $10)
Speakers:
Arata Shimao (Tama Art Univ.\, Japan)\,
Timothy Brook (UBC)\,
Erin Campbell (Univ. of Victoria)\,
Susan Chang (UBC)\,
Ada
m Chu (UBC)\,
Craig Clunas (Univ. of London SOAS)\,
John Hay (UC
Santa Cruz)\,
Gary Ho (Ho Chuang-shi Foundation for Calligraphy\, Taiw
an)\,
Jean Kares (UBC)\,
Richard King (Univ. of Victoria)\,
Zoe Li (UBC)\,
Kathlyn Liscomb (Univ. of Victoria)\,
April Liu (U
BC)\,
Kazuko Kameda-Madar (UBC)\,
Yin Ji Nan (Central Acad. of Fi
ne Arts\, China)\,
Jerry Schmidt (UBC)\,
Hsingyuan Tsao (UBC)\,Richard Vinograd (Stanford Univ.)\,
Suzanne Wright (Univ. of Tenne
ssee)\,
Joshua Yiu (Seattle Art Museum).
Panel leaders:< /strong>
Timothy Brook (UBC)\,
James Cahill (Emeritus UC Berkele
y)\,
Craig Clunas (Univ. of London SOAS)\,
John Hay (UC Santa Cru
z)\,
Richard Lynn (Emeritus Univ. of Toronto)\,
Yin Ji Nan (Centr
al Acad. of Fine Arts\, China)\,
Arata Shimao (Tama Art Univ.\, Japan)
\,
Susan Young (UC Santa Cruz).
The problem of the copy is inten ded to serve as a vehicle for rethinking issues of production\, authenticit y\, creativity\, appropriation\, reiteration\, interpreting\, re-interpreti ng\, emulating\, and pedagogy in Chinese art\, particularly in its later im perial period. A long-held truism in Chinese painting history is that a gre at artist is also a great copyist. The logic of this claim pits Chinese art against the traditions of post-Renaissance European art\, which constructe d artists as unique and individual heroes who consciously avoided copying t o create something that has never been made before\, a pursuit of so-called “originality.” Thus it has been considered that the true artist is expecte d to create\; the talentless artist can merely copy. To copy was to plagiar ize\, to reproduce a flawed reproduction that merely captured the surface o f things. Authenticity and originality demanded creation.
Like all tr uisms\, this one exaggerates the polarity between East and West\, and yet t here is a difference between them that needs to be explored and reinterpret ed. In Europe\, the concept of copying provided no ground for legitimacy. I n China\, on the other hand\, mo ? (trace\, close copy) and fang ? (copy\, or emulating\, appropriation) were understood as essential methods for legi timate forms of cultural production. Is it possible that mofang is not what the English word copy implies at all\, but something better understood as visual referencing\, coding\, or appropriating? In this economy of signs\, then\, what constitutes authenticity? Our goal is to rethink\, and even red efine\, a theoretical position for Chinese painting in the broader context of painting theory.
This public and free event is organized by Dr. Hs ingyuan Tsao (Dept. of Art History\, Visual Art and Theory\, UBC) and Dr. T imothy Brook (St. John’s College and Dept. of History\, UBC). For more info rmation\, please send an email to awolap e@yahoo.com or call 778-865-5907
Sponsored by:
University of British Columbia (UBC)\,
Dept. of Art History\,
Visual Art\, and Theory\,
St. John’s College\,
Museum of Anthropo
logy (MOA)\,
Maple Mountain Studio\, Studio of Fleeting Thoughts
MacTaggart Collection\, University of Alberta.